As Justice Yadav digs in heels, CJI asks Allahabad HC for a fresh report on his remarks targeting Muslims

On December 17, the Collegium headed by CJI Khanna had met Justice Yadav and sought an explanation. However, since the meeting, Justice Yadav has dug his heels in and no apology or explanation has been made. Days after the meeting, CJI Khanna had also apprised the full court of the Supreme Court on the issue.

The CJI’s latest move is seen as the first step in the process to initiate an in-house inquiry over alleged misconduct by a judge.

As per the 1995 Supreme Court judgement, C Ravichandran Iyer versus Justice A M Bhattacharjee and Others, when the matter relates to a complaint against a judge of the High Court, the Chief Justice of that High Court, after inquiry, consults with the Chief Justice of India.

That case involved allegations of financial impropriety against then Bombay High Court Chief Justice A M Bhattacharjee, where the court dealt with the “hiatus between bad behaviour and impeachable misbehaviour”.

While Justice Bhattacharjee resigned after the allegations surfaced, the Supreme Court evolved the law on the issue and stated that it “would form a precedent for future”.

“We are of the considered view that where the complaint relates to the Judge of the High Court, the Chief Justice of that High Court, after verification, and if necessary, after confidential enquiry from his independent source, should satisfy himself about the truth of the imputation made by the Bar Association through its office bearers against the Judge and consult the Chief Justice of India, where deemed necessary, by placing all the information with him. When the Chief Justice of India is seized of the matter, to avoid embarrassment to him and to allow fairness in the procedure to be adopted in furtherance thereof, the Bar should suspend all further actions to enable the Chief Justice of India to appropriately deal with the matter,” the ruling stated.

“The Chief Justice of India, on receipt of the information from the Chief Justice of the High Court, after being satisfied about the correctness and truth touching the conduct of the Judge, may tender such advice either directly or may initiate such action, as is deemed necessary or warranted under given facts and circumstances. If circumstances permit, it may be salutary to take the Judge into confidence before initiating action. On the decision being taken by the Chief Justice of India, the matter should rest at that,” it stated.

Following this ruling, in 1997, a full court of the Supreme Court resolved to set up an in-house inquiry mechanism if judges were found to be in violation of ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’, a code of ethics adopted by the top court.